4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 24

25

What Is Architecture?

“The happy towns are those that have anarchitecture.”1

“Architecture can be found in the telephoneand in the Parthenon. How easily could it

be at home in our houses!”2

“Architecture is the first manifestation ofman creating his own universe, creating itin the image of nature, submitting to thelaws of nature, the laws which govern our

own nature, our universe. The laws ofgravity, of statics and of dynamics, impose

themselves by a reductio adabsurdum: everything must hold together

or it will collapse.”3

“Architecture has nothing to do with the various ‘styles.’ The styles of Louis XIV,XV, XVI or Gothic, are to architecture

what a feather is on a woman’s head; it issometimes pretty, though not always, and

never anything more.”4

Le Corbusier

chapter

The profession of architecture has been missing from the soft-ware industry, but the first step in establishing it is to attempt

to understand the essential nature of architecture, as it has existedthroughout human history. Words should have clear meanings but,unfortunately, in the field of information technology, words, titles,and roles are muddled and confused. Anyone can call himself orherself an architect, “blueprints” detail processes and activitiesrather than a design, and other common words have multiplemeanings. It is ironic that this is the case in a field where preci-sion would be expected as a dominant character trait, but it hasbecome common for software professionals to bandy about wordssuch as architect, designer, architectures, styles, and models without usingtheir commonly held meanings.

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 25

It is critical for information technology professionals and theirclients to know what architecture is. It is far more than “technicalarchitectures” (akin to the layout of pipes or wires), the mappingof a domain, or a series of protocols. In order for the analogy tomake sense and the profession of software architecture to be areality, we have to ask and try to answer the question: What is theessential nature of architecture, as it has always existed? Only whenthis is understood can we apply the true concept of architectureto the world of software-based technology.

Is architecture, for example, just artistic style applied to struc-tures? Is it design? Building architecture is all around us; we can-not avoid it—as we can avoid even art and music—and we allknow what it is on a certain level, yet the word architecture is con-ceptual and defies precise definition. Entire books have been writ-ten just to ask and explore the question, “What is architecture?”This is a striking fact given that architecture is as old as recordedhistory, yet the answer to the question never gets closer than anapproximation of the truth, like Plato’s shadows on the wall.

It helps to remember that architecture, the grand concept, isseparate from the applied activity and the products of architec-ture, such as buildings, software structures, and boats. The sameis true of art, a thoroughly indefinable concept, but one that findsphysical form in paintings, sculptures, and performances.

…architecture really does not exist. Only a work of architectureexists. Architecture does exist in the mind. A man who does awork of architecture does it as an offering to the spirit of archi-tecture…a spirit which knows no style, knows no technique, nomethod. It just waits for that which presents itself. There is archi-tecture, and it is the embodiment of the unmeasurable.5

Louis Kahn

There are many interpretations of architecture and theory inbooks, but

Going into a stack of books in pursuit of architecture is like look-ing in a butcher’s shop for a sheep; it’s there all right, but laidout in a rather particular way.6

Paul Shepheard

For our purposes in regard to software, it is a substantialfirst step to know that architecture is not a narrow concept refer-ring only to building design, and it never has been. In fact, ithas held broader meanings in the past, both direct and alle-gorical, than it does today. In reality, the relationship betweenbuilding and software architecture is more than an illustrativeanalogy since architecture has always been broad enough to

The SoftwareArchitect’s Profession:

An Introduction

26

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 26

include a structure such as an information technology systemas a part of itself. Building and software architecture are branchesgrowing from the same trunk of architecture. Both are true archi-tecture, and software architecture should not be regarded as justan analogy. It is architecture.

Vitruvius was an architect who lived during the era of the RomanEmpire. He has become a founding father of architecture and isthe author of the ten books of architecture, De Architectura. Muchof Western architectural theory has flowed from his genius.Vitruvius wrote that architecture applies to three categories: build-ings, machines, and timepieces (by which he meant sundials). Themachines he alluded to were the Roman models used to breakdown the defenses of city walls. Michelangelo, too, was an archi-tect of modern warfare devices for the Italian city-state of Florence,at a much later time.

So even the earliest concepts of architecture were broad andtechnology-focused. Architecture can be seen as a body ofknowledge—a design discipline—applied to branches of tech-nology. This technological underpinning of architecture is a com-mon thread joining the branches of architecture: buildings,machines, timepieces, ships, and now software. In this key respect,software architecture is positively Vitruvian in spirit, and it is fairlysafe (although maybe presumptuous) to believe that Vitruviuswould have endorsed the analogy.

Everyone enjoys trying to pin down the elusive. John Ruskin definedarchitecture in 1874 (rather metaphysically) as the adaptation ofform to resist force, while Goethe in 1829 called architecture “frozenmusic.” Sallust, a contemporary of Vitruvius’s, wrote that every manis the architect of his own fortune; Milton wrote of those who werethe architects of their own happiness; and Robert Browning wrote

That far land we dream about, Where every man is his own architect.

Red Cotton Nightcap Country (1873)

As for the definitive, so to speak, definition of architecture,The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary offers this:architecture /’a:kitEktSer /n.&v. M16. [Fr., or L architectura: see ARCHITECT,

-URE.] A n. 1 The art or science of building; esp. the art or prac-tice of designing and building edifices for human use, taking bothaesthetic and practical factors into account. M16 2 Architectural work;

ManyDefinitions of theIndefinable

Technology—The CommonThread ofArchitecture

What Is Architecture?

27

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 27

something built. L16. 3 A style of building; mode, manner, or styleof construction or organization; structure. E17. B The conceptualstructure and logical organization of a computer or computer-basedsystem. M20. 4 The action or process of building; construction. arch.E17.

1 marine architecture, naval architecture the design and building of shipsetc.7

So architecture is architecture is architecture, regardless of thenature and purpose of the designed structure. It is not poeticlicense or a convenient theoretical posture to propose the anal-ogy with software. The broad meaning of architecture has beenaccepted for centuries, and even the writers of the Oxford Dictionaryaccept software architecture as a subset of architecture.

Vitruvius wrote that all architecture is comprised of the elementsof function, beauty, and structure. This triad has formed the basisof architecture since ancient Rome and has the simple eleganceto form the theoretical basis of software architecture, as well. JamesO’Gorman has written cogently on the Vitruvian triad:

Architects think geometrically, and so must we. EnvisionVitruvius’s definition as an equilateral triangle with one of hisfactors at each corner. Each is discrete, yet all combine to shapea larger whole. That larger whole, represented by our equilat-eral triangle, is the work of architecture.8

Utilitas represents the need for a structure—the function of thestructure. This side of the triangle is the perspective of the clientand inhabitants who, whatever the motivation, perceive an unmetneed that can be met through a building or software constructionprogram. Some clients see their need as a problem to be solved—such as a dysfunctional order entry system that slows productiv-ity and impedes customer service. Other clients see the need asan opportunity to increase profit or market share, such as an air-line that can gain a competitive advantage through a better mileagereward system. Still other clients may see the need as a way tobetter service their customers, students, or the citizens they serve.Utilitas is the reason or desire for a building project and the func-tion it will serve. This is the role of the client.

Venustas is the design. The design is created to meet the func-tional need of the client and represents the organization and artis-tic arrangement of the systems and materials. This is the role andresponsibility of the architect.

Utilitas,Venustas,Firmitas

The SoftwareArchitect’s Profession:

An Introduction

28

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 28

Firmitas represents the means, materials, and logistics of con-struction. Without a solid, well-built structure, the need of the clientis not met and the design is never realized. Firmitas is the role ofthe builders.

Within this triad, there are ancillary roles such as those of engi-neers, consultants, and managers. These roles are necessaryadjuncts and are subsumed by the primary triad of function, design,and construction. The engineer, for example, is typically hired bythe architect to certify the strength of structural elements. The engi-neer may also be hired by a builder in need of expertise in howto build a certain element.

The Vitruvian triad translates perfectly to software construc-tion and is an elegant cognitive map of the essential roles andresponsibilities engaged in the creation of a structure.

Structures are conceptualized and realized through the triad offunction, design, and construction, but the result can range fromthe ridiculous to the sublime. Great design—design that meetsthe needs of the inhabitants and is aesthetically pleasing—hasbeen the subject of many fine books and is a field of study untoitself.

Great design is the raison d’être of architects, yet in the soft-ware field, it rarely has been mentioned. There are software pro-fessionals who do not think a system’s design needs to bedocumented at all; that it is sufficient to let it evolve through thebuilding process, remaining forever implicit. Others see softwarearchitecture and design as just a phase rather than the critical activ-ity it is. As Peter Freeman explains:

In general, it is wise to concentrate time and resources on theanalysis and design activities, since a dollar spent there will oftenbe worth ten or a hundred dollars spent later. The reason forthat has been presented repeatedly in the literature and comesdown to the simple fact that as in most things, understandinga problem and planning a solution, if done carefully, will helpprevent mistakes during construction or operation that are verydifficult and costly to fix. Additionally, there are critical prop-erties of software, such as reliability, that cannot be added onto a system during construction; they must be designed in.9

It is our hope that besides lowering the astoundingly high ratesof software project failure, the establishment of a true professionof software architecture will lead to glorious design. It is also hopedthat there will be design competitions, juries, and a software archi-tecture critic at The New York Times. Great design results from the

The Mystery of Design

What Is Architecture?

29

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 29

architect’s understanding of the client’s world, as well as archi-tectural vision and skill; it does not emerge from committees orthe collective efforts of builders. It does not grow from casual regardor from the hands of those who see design as a piecemeal devel-opment phase.

The classic legacies of building architecture hold many profoundlessons for software architects. St. Peter’s Basilica is famous andgrand, but it suffered when competing visions were inflicted uponthe design.

Michelangelo, almost superhuman in his inventiveness andaliveness, was the architect commissioned by the Pope to designa cathedral dedicated to St. Peter, the apostle to whom Jesus said,“Upon this rock I build my church.” Michelangelo was 72 years oldat the time and all his life he really just wanted to be a sculptor.But his client, the Pope, was always able to talk him into doingthings like paintings, buildings, and tombs.

Michelangelo had tried unsuccessfully to foist the SistineChapel assignment off on Raphael at an earlier time, but he nowdevoted himself to the design of St. Peter’s until his death at theage of 89. Subsequently, popes and architects couldn’t resist mak-ing their marks upon the ongoing project—killing the vision andquality of the design.

Here, Le Corbusier speaks to the lesson of Rome and St.Peter’s, and to us about the soul of architectural unity and harmony:

The dimensions are considerable. To construct such a dome instone was a tour de force that few men would have dared. …Thegeneral arrangement of the apses and of the Attic storey is alliedto that of the Colosseum; the heights are the same. The wholescheme was a complete unity; it grouped together elements ofthe noblest and richest kind: the Portico, the cylinders, the squareshapes, the drum, the dome. The mouldings are of an intenselypassionate character, harsh and pathetic. The whole design wouldhave risen as a single mass, unique and entire. The eye wouldhave taken it in as one thing. Michael Angelo completed theapses and the drum of the dome. The rest fell into barbarianhands; all was spoilt. Mankind lost one of the highest works ofhuman intelligence. If one can imagine Michael Angelo as cog-nizant of the disaster, we have a terrifying drama.10

One of the barbarians was Bernini, as Le Corbusier explains:

Verbose and awkward. Bernini’s Colonnade is beautiful in itself.The façade is beautiful in itself, but bears no relation to theDome. The real aim of the building was the Dome; it has beenhidden! The Dome was in a proper relation to the apses: they

The Lesson of St. Peter’s:Harmony and Unity

The SoftwareArchitect’s Profession:

An Introduction

30

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 30

have been hidden. The Portico was a solid mass: it has becomemerely a front.11

…foolish and thoughtless Popes dismissed Michael Angelo; mis-erable men have murdered St. Peter’s within and without. It hasbecome stupidly enough the St. Peter’s of to-day, like a rich andpushing cardinal, lacking…everything. Immense loss! A passion,an intelligence beyond normal—this was the Everlasting Yea;it has become sadly enough a “perhaps,” an “apparently,” an “itmay be,” an “I am not sure.” Wretched failure!12

The lesson of Rome is for wise men, for those who know andcan appreciate, who can resist and can verify. Rome is the damna-tion of the half-educated. To send architectural students to Romeis to cripple them for life.13

Le Corbusier’s passion for elegant design is contagious, andthe lessons are great for software architects. The abstract, invisi-ble nature of software is used to hide poor design from clients andend-users, and it is made even more invisible by the lack of explicitblueprints so rampant in the industry. But the user of a softwaresystem experiences the same sense of “rightness” or “wrongness”in response to poor or discordant design as a building occupantdoes. And just as a person with an unpracticed eye might find St.Peter’s beautiful, so would a naïve, unstudied software user findan awkward system satisfactory.

There is a central quality which is the root criterion of life andspirit in a man, a town, a building, or a wilderness. This qual-ity is objective and precise, but it cannot be named.

The search which we make for this quality, in our own lives, isthe central search of any person, and the crux of any individualperson’s story. It is the search for those moments and situationswhen we are most alive.14

Christopher Alexander

Both software users and building occupants experience thatsense of rightness or wrongness and often have difficulty articu-lating exactly why. “I just like it” is a perfectly acceptable answerand high praise. Christopher Alexander, a brilliant building archi-tect from Berkeley, California, describes this ineffable “quality with-out a name” in The Timeless Way of Building. It lies at the heart of thequestions “What is good architecture?” and “What is good design?”

The quality without a name is experienced rather than voicedand can be a part of a building, a person, a part of a software appli-cation, a piece of music, a town—anything. A tenet of Mr.Alexander’s philosophy is based on patterns: Our lives are patternsof events, done over and over again; a town evolves according tothe human patterns of its inhabitants; a building is a collection

The QualityWithout aName

What Is Architecture?

31

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 31

of design patterns that either bring the occupants to life or thwartthem. Good architecture, good design, must be congruent with ourindividual and collective patterns of behavior and perception.

Consider two human patterns. On the one hand, consider thefact that certain Greek village streets have a band of whitewash,four or five feet wide, outside every house, so that people canpull their chairs out into the street, into a realm which is halftheirs, half street, and so contribute to the life around them.

And on the other hand, consider the fact that cafes in LosAngeles are indoors, away from the sidewalk, in order to pre-vent food from being contaminated.

Both these patterns have a purpose. One has the purpose ofallowing people to contribute to the street life and to be partof it—to the extent they desire—by marking a domain whichmakes it possible. The other has the purpose of keeping peo-ple healthy, by making sure that they will not eat food that hasdust particles on it. Yet one is alive; the other dead.15

Mr. Alexander further explains that the Greek pattern of white-wash sustains itself. The occupants freshen it each year willingly,because it is a pattern they connect to and value. The indoor cafes,on the other hand, can be sustained only by force of law:

People want to be outdoors on a spring day, want to drink theirbeer or coffee in the open, to watch the world go by, but theyare imprisoned in the café by the laws of public health. The sit-uation is self-destroying, not only because it will change as soonas the law which upholds it disappears, but also in the moresubtle sense that it is continuously creating just those inner con-flicts, just those reservoirs of stress…which will, unsatisfied, soonwell up like a gigantic boil and leak out in some other form ofdestruction or refusal to cooperate with the situation.16

This is but one fine example of Christopher Alexander’s ideasregarding architectural patterns, but it perfectly illustrates the nat-ural, human aesthetics that mysteriously and inexorably lead usto feel more, or less, alive. These inner dictates lie at the heart ofgreat design and are profoundly important to the profession of soft-ware architecture.

What is software but simply metaphorical rooms, buildings, andtowns made up of human patterns of behavior and perception?There are happy applications that are a pleasure to use, acquiringself-sustaining lives of their own, and others that lead inhabitantsto throw equipment from windows. There is software that invokesthe magical feeling of a veranda where you lose track of time andfeel intensely alive. Software is subject to the same aesthetic prin-ciples as structures from our architectural past and will require thesame application of fine design to elevate it beyond the mundane.

Conclusion

The SoftwareArchitect’s Profession:

An Introduction

32

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 32

We need to see that only the products of architecture vary:buildings, software, ships, machines, and timepieces—even ourown fates. The materials are widely divergent—wood, steel, com-puter code—and these materials drive vastly different techniquesand trades. But all the products of architecture belong to homo con-structivus, who creates structures to extend and enhance humanactivity beyond itself. These products of architecture are technol-ogy-focused and are realized through the interdependent triad ofutilitas, venustas, and firmitas.

The profession of software architecture has been missing fromsoftware construction and needs to be established. Only a true dis-cipline of software architecture, consistent with the classical con-cept of architecture, will elevate software to stand on par with thegreat architectural legacies of the past.

Endnotes

1. Le Corbusier, Toward a New Architecture (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover

Publications, 1986), 15.

2. Ibid., 15.

3. Ibid., 73.

4. Ibid., 37.

5. Louis Kahn, in Louis Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews, ed.

Alessandra Latour (New York: Rizzoli International Publications,

1991), 168.

6. Paul Shepheard, What Is Architecture? An Essay on Landscapes,

Buildings, and Machines (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994), 25.

7. Lesley Brown, editor, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on

Historic Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

8. James O’Gorman, ABC of Architecture (Philadelphia, Pa.: University

of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 10.

9. Peter Freeman, Software Perspectives: The System Is the Message

(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1987), 148.

10. Le Corbusier, Ibid., 170.

12. Ibid., 171.

13. Ibid., 172.

14. Ibid., 173.

14. Christopher Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1979), ix.

15. Ibid., 119.

16. Ibid., 120.

What Is Architecture?

33

4772|c03.qxd p024-033 8/27/01 5:01 PM Page 33